Ineligible applicants allocated HDB flats, housing grants due to weaknesses in checks: AGO report

More than 228,000 applications and renewals, amounting to S$24.99 million in revenue, were approved despite applicants not meeting criteria. 

These included cases involving deceased applicants (S$2.95 million), applicants who were not the registered flat owner, tenants (S$21.58 million) and family parking arrangements that did not meet proximity requirements (S$490,000).

Separately, more than 10,000 transactions involving commercial vehicles charged incorrect season parking rates, resulting in an estimated S$1 million in under-collection.

The AGO report said HDB acknowledged the need to strengthen its verification checks on season parking and family season parking transactions, as well as its controls to identify commercial vehicles to charge the correct season parking rate.

It would also introduce measures such as requiring applicants to declare at application that they had met the eligibility criteria and reminding them at renewal that they must continue to do so. In addition, HDB plans to implement a revamped season parking system by 2027.

SOME CAR PARK PATROLS COMPLETED IN LESS THAN 10 SECONDS

Significant gaps were also identified in HDB’s oversight of a contractor responsible for car park patrol and enforcement services from Nov 1, 2021 to Jan 31, 2026.

A preliminary estimate found that HDB may have overpaid about S$9.7 million for work not performed.

AGO uncovered “significant discrepancies” in patrol records, non-compliance with audit requirements and other indications of shortfall in patrol work, including multiple instances where the patrol of a location was completed in “less than 10 seconds”.

“Given that about 50 per cent of the car parks to be patrolled were multi-storey car parks, it is highly implausible for a car park to be properly patrolled in such a short span of time,” said the AGO.

“We also noted that HDB did not make use of available data, such as actual patrol records, to facilitate its monitoring of the contractor beyond the existing system alerts. Thus, there was a risk that patrol duties might not have been performed as required under the contract.” 

In addition, the actual patrol frequency for some car parks was lower than required by HDB. There were also concurrent clock-ins by the same patrol personnel at different car park locations.

“During our audit, HDB raised the data discrepancy issues with the contractor’s senior management who then initiated an investigation. According to the contractor, their investigation found that its IT system for managing the work of patrol personnel had access control weaknesses,” said the report.

“This resulted in the integrity of the records in the system and data for the audit being compromised. HDB informed us that the contractor had since lodged a police report and that it had worked with the contractor to put in place protective measures.”

HDB said it has zero tolerance for attempts to undermine its enforcement process and will exercise its full contractual rights.

“Besides issuing a formal warning letter in March 2026 for contractual breaches, HDB has commenced recovery of the administrative charges, which includes the full extent of payments made for works not rendered,” said the agency, adding that it recognises that there were gaps in its processes and has taken steps to address them.

This includes the implementation of automated system checks for more rigorous monitoring and adopting stronger contractual requirements in the latest contracts.

OTHER LAPSES

AGO also flagged errors in the valuation of variation works under Home Improvement Programme (HIP) projects, resulting in both overpayments and underpayments.

HDB has since reassessed the affected variation orders and rectified the valuation errors. It also accorded a poor performance grading to the consultants involved, which will affect their future tendering opportunities for HDB projects.

Possible irregularities were also identified in quotations for certain works, raising concerns about whether value for money had been achieved.

AGO’s checks also found “tell-tale signs” of possible irregularities in supporting documents submitted for audit. The construction contract concerned was managed by a consultant engaged by HDB.

A subsequent investigation conducted by HDB found that the employee involved had no intention to impede the audit process.

However, HDB acknowledged that making alterations to documents was a serious matter and said it takes a firm view of such lapses. Disciplinary action has been taken against the staff member responsible.

HDB also issued a warning letter and accorded a poor performance grading to the consultant, which will affect its future tendering opportunities.